If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Transit Service to EIA | Planning/Discussion

Public transit service between Edmonton and Leduc - with stops at the international airport - could soon be a reality if the numbers add up, say officials in Leduc.

Leduc County Reeve John Whaley and City of Leduc Mayor Greg Krischke said yesterday a meeting is slated for next week to crunch numbers on the idea.

CRUNCH NUMBERS

"We're trying to get all the final numbers put together and see what makes sense," Whaley said.

"We're talking with (ETS) transportation to see about leasing buses. We've gotten a lot of our figures from working with the transportation system in Edmonton."

Whaley said he wants to see bus service between Leduc and Edmonton.

"There's obviously a wish or demand for it. As local authorities, we're trying to see if we can make this happen for the people."

If all the numbers add up, a one-year pilot project would be introduced.

In a Sun editorial board meeting yesterday, Edmonton Mayor Stephen Mandel said he would be all for such a service, but that there's nothing he can do unless Leduc County officials approach him with a plan.

"We can't just all of a sudden decide we're going to deliver bus service in another county.

"We're willing to do it, but we can only do so much."

Mandel also said issues such as where the bus would run from and to would have to be addressed.

"The problem is, buses go from many places. Would everybody go from one spot?

INTEGRATION

"There's ways to do that effectively and it means integrating it and I would think we'd be better off going not just to the airport, but businesses in Leduc could use bus transit, too. But that's up to them to come to the city of Edmonton to negotiate that."

Edmonton city council approved a plan this week to purchase 203 new diesel buses over the next two years.

It would be perfect timing to talk about regional tranist. Strathcona is going to contact talks with there provider and are worried about rising cost. They just raised there fares again. Still not bad, but 73 bucks a month.

I've been told by many people in Sherwood Park that their service is not very good. I'm assuming that most of their traffic is from shuttling people to and from Edmonton.

As for Edmonton, i believe our service is good, in fact too good in some areas. I remember reading about ETS looking for smaller buses to use in the evenings. Where are these buses? You can basically see empty buses running in the evening in many neighbourhoods. I think they could save a lot of money by buying some smaller buses. I imagine that when the LRT gets extended to Century Park, there will also be less buses required to go from the southside to downtown.

I've been told by many people in Sherwood Park that their service is not very good. I'm assuming that most of their traffic is from shuttling people to and from Edmonton.

As for Edmonton, i believe our service is good, in fact too good in some areas. I remember reading about ETS looking for smaller buses to use in the evenings. Where are these buses? You can basically see empty buses running in the evening in many neighbourhoods. I think they could save a lot of money by buying some smaller buses. I imagine that when the LRT gets extended to Century Park, there will also be less buses required to go from the southside to downtown.

there are some routes already in place that uses smaller ford busses.

SP--stop buying laz-boys on wheels! Get two human busses for the price of one you use.

The point being Mandel's approach to regional cooperation seems to be working. The other municipalities are changing their attitudes one by one. The Sun's editorial today "About this bus" is quite timely, however I don't think Mandel needs luck. I think he has the right approach.

SP--stop buying laz-boys on wheels! Get two human busses for the price of one you use.

Those buses i know of but they were looking at regular buses that were maybe 2/3 the size of the new blue ones we have. These small buses exist all over Europe but it has more to do with small roads than with passenger volumes over there.

SP--stop buying laz-boys on wheels! Get two human busses for the price of one you use.

Those buses i know of but they were looking at regular buses that were maybe 2/3 the size of the new blue ones we have. These small buses exist all over Europe but it has more to do with small roads than with passenger volumes over there.

And it has everything to do with the union collective agreement in Edmonton. They use them extensively in Calgary.

SP--stop buying laz-boys on wheels! Get two human busses for the price of one you use.

Those buses i know of but they were looking at regular buses that were maybe 2/3 the size of the new blue ones we have. These small buses exist all over Europe but it has more to do with small roads than with passenger volumes over there.

And it has everything to do with the union collective agreement in Edmonton. They use them extensively in Calgary.

i think they are the same size as in Edmonton. they looked the same to me.

There is a very minimal cost difference between running
the 40-foot low floor buses, and the Elf (para) buses.
The Elf buses have a 5 year life span, the big buses
have a minimum 18 year life span.
Fuel consumption difference is very little actually.
Driver's pay difference isn't as much as it was last year.
But public perception plays the major role in ETS choosing
Elf buses, because the public thinks they cost way less to operate.

What I would like to see is some 30-foot buses for local service
to suburban areas like Ellerslie, Terwillegar, even Castledowns
and parts of Mill Woods.

SP--stop buying laz-boys on wheels! Get two human busses for the price of one you use.

Those buses i know of but they were looking at regular buses that were maybe 2/3 the size of the new blue ones we have. These small buses exist all over Europe but it has more to do with small roads than with passenger volumes over there.

And it has everything to do with the union collective agreement in Edmonton. They use them extensively in Calgary.

That's what caused the last transit strike in Calgary... CT wanted to use the smaller buses to save $$$ and the union wasn't in favour cuz the jr. guys drive the smaller buses.

A few more positive statements from the county, and I might even get my hopes up for a meeting or something. Who knows what might happen after that? Perhaps they'd put together a working group that will study the number of centimetres the bus will travel in either jurisdiction, and how much air the passengers who don't get off in Leduc require, before issuing a white paper. And after that makes the rounds do you think we might see an open bidding process that invites transit services from around the globe to be sure nobody gets taken for a ride? (Meaning that the price has to be right, of course.) If, and I mean if, things get that far, they might just be willing to have another meeting, you know. From whence they could always issue another statement. The possibilities are endless!

Nice to see Leduc get the old binoculars out to scout the horizon. Honestly here, please keep it going this time. It would have been welcomed 40 years ago.

My vote is that the service goes to wherever the southern terminus of the LRT happens to be, thus currently the University.

The solution seems pretty simple - ETS adds a route to the airport from southgate and/or heritage and Leduc also starts running busses to YEG to connect with them. Some kind of fare sharing agreement would be nice, but the service would be workable even if ETS and Leduc transit charged fares independantly.

I am in two minds as to whether the county/city of Leduc should help provide bus service to the airport. If they don't it would provide the city of Edmonton with the justification to annex the airport. If these people are unable/unwilling to provide the services it needs I am sure the city of Edmonton would.

You cry and whine about it and have the news media overplay the story. Maybe name some Edmonton politicians who aren't doing their job. This is what Calgary does and they generally get what they want. I envy their tenacity and cringe at our apathy.

LRT should run to International Airport: Mandel

The city is pressing ahead with plans for bus service to the Edmonton International Airport but has yet to resolve cost-sharing, Mayor Stephen Mandel says.

Mandel's idea of the bus service -- one costing "several millions of dollars" -- is richer than the one a County of Leduc official has in mind.

"We weren't thinking in terms of millions," county manager Doug Wright said. "It's unfortunate we're hearing it through the press, very unfortunate."

But Mike Slade, chairman of the Leduc-Nisku Economic Development Authority, isn't surprised at the cost range. Slade welcomed Edmonton's eagerness to start the bus service.

Greg Krischke, City of Leduc mayor, said his preliminary estimates don't put the cost at "several millions" but he can see it topping $1 million.

Leduc county and city are pushing for bus service from Edmonton so workers can commute to Leduc and Nisku. The route would also carry workers to the airport, along with airline passengers.

Mandel in an interview mentioned the cost range, while withholding details. He said the city has worked out the probable amounts, including who should pay what. The mayor said one reason the service will cost so much is that Edmonton Transit must buy special highway buses.

"As soon as we sit down with the (Edmonton) airport authority and Leduc County and Leduc City, and see what they say, then we can move down the line." He said those talks could happen within the next 10 days.

"We'd like to move ahead as quick as possible. But there's always a cost and people have to be willing to share the cost."

Concerns about access to the International increased earlier this week when Edmonton Airports warned that all its parking lots were full. The authority said Friday the crunch has now eased, but it still wants people to find other ways of getting to the airport if possible.

In the absence of municipal transit, passengers' choices are to park at lots across Highway 2 from the airport, take taxis or the Sky Shuttle buses that serve hotels, or have others drop them off.

Despite the shortage of parking at the International, only Toronto and Montreal have more stalls at their main airports, spokesman Jim Rudolph said. Edmonton has about 6,200 spots, although that includes 500 that are out of use because of the spring flooding and 300 reserved for rental cars.

Edmonton Airports officials checked with other airports and found that Toronto is adding a parking garage that will eventually hold 13,000 vehicles. Montreal's airport has about 8,325 stalls, which, like Edmonton, were not enough to handle all of the demand during the recent spring break.

The Leduc-Nisku Economic Development Authority sent a questionnaire to about 1,000 businesses in its region last year to gauge opinion on starting a bus service from Edmonton to attract employees.

Just 145 filled in the survey but 89 of those -- 61 per cent -- said their workers would use buses running between Edmonton, Nisku Business Park, the airport and possibly Leduc. Another 46 said their staff would not, while 10 gave no opinion.

The challenge, Mandel said, will be to reach a long-term cost-sharing agreement because city taxpayers already cover about half the expense of existing routes.

He said it's probable about a quarter of the riders on the proposed service will be airline passengers. Most others will be people working at the airport or in Leduc and Nisku.

Calgary has bus service to its airport but the route serves other areas of the city as well. It connects with two LRT stations, the closest being about eight kilometres from the airport.

Tony McCallum, with Calgary Transit, said the service started as a way to serve staff in the airport's maintenance area. It later added a stop at the terminal.

"Some people board with luggage at the terminal but most of the passengers are airport employees," McCallum said. The main advantage for passengers is the fare, just $2.25 to downtown.

At the peak of this week's parking squeeze at Edmonton International, staff were directing drivers to park along service roads. Even the independent Park'N Fly lot, across Highway 2 from the airport, had no empty stalls.

The lesser-known Airways Airport Parking lot, east of Highway 2 at the Nisku overpass, had spare weekly and monthly spots through the worst of the crisis, owner Clarence Shields said.

What kind of outdated and embarrassing equipment could Leduc be contemplating in order to save millions of dollars here? Does it have a fleet of 50 year old school busses rusting in some politically friendly farmers backlot?

And yeah, it is unfortunate that you have to read about this in the press, isn't it, Doug Wright? Really, it is very unfortunate your posse didn't hear about it at the bargaining table after they ran away from it for the umpteenth time.

I think if the city goes ahead with transit service, without the full participation of Leduc, it will be kindof akin to Edmonton taking over responsibility for the airport. That could set a legal claim to collect the tax revenue from YEG and Airlinks, with a connecting corridor that might as well include Nisku. I don't think it's a bad idea from Edmonton's perspective, as that is the single most important piece of area infrastructure that absolutely needs such service immediately (only moreso with the current parking crunch.) But does Leduc realise that by forfeiting their part of the bargain they'll be paving the way for YEG annexation by Edmonton?

As was mentioned at the EAA meeting this is embarrasing...This airport is not gonna stop going crazy,the traffic is here now and will continue to grow like crazy for the next few years.EAA dont make the mistakes of ''not seeing the boom'' that the old group made.It was agreed at the last meeting that there were plenty of signs it was going to happen...We surely dont want to be the busiest little airport in the west.

I'm normally all for preserving energy and darkness (I like to see stars) but I agree that this stretch needs to be lighted. 3 lanes in darkness with snow and people in a hurry because this is the home stretch all add up to a hairy drive, sometimes. The fact that nisku and other businesses light their yards makes it worse when the headlight glow in front of you is nowhere near the brightest thing in your field of vision.

I think if the city goes ahead with transit service, without the full participation of Leduc, it will be kindof akin to Edmonton taking over responsibility for the airport. That could set a legal claim to collect the tax revenue from YEG and Airlinks, with a connecting corridor that might as well include Nisku. I don't think it's a bad idea from Edmonton's perspective, as that is the single most important piece of area infrastructure that absolutely needs such service immediately (only moreso with the current parking crunch.) But does Leduc realise that by forfeiting their part of the bargain they'll be paving the way for YEG annexation by Edmonton?

Agree.

It would be really interesting to see the chain reaction such a bold move would set off.

I'm normally all for preserving energy and darkness (I like to see stars) but I agree that this stretch needs to be lighted. 3 lanes in darkness with snow and people in a hurry because this is the home stretch all add up to a hairy drive, sometimes. The fact that nisku and other businesses light their yards makes it worse when the headlight glow in front of you is nowhere near the brightest thing in your field of vision.

Couldn't agree more - drove there in a snow storm and it was fine until it all went "dark" then I could see nothing apart from blowing snow caused by ***** truck drivers still doing 110km/h.

I'm normally all for preserving energy and darkness (I like to see stars) but I agree that this stretch needs to be lighted. 3 lanes in darkness with snow and people in a hurry because this is the home stretch all add up to a hairy drive, sometimes. The fact that nisku and other businesses light their yards makes it worse when the headlight glow in front of you is nowhere near the brightest thing in your field of vision.

Couldn't agree more - drove there in a snow storm and it was fine until it all went "dark" then I could see nothing apart from blowing snow caused by ***** truck drivers still doing 110km/h.

I agree as well. The businesses in north Leduc (especially the car dealerships) are a hazard and should be forced to shield their lights. Adding to the problem is the alternate lit and unlit sections. Driving northbound at night one is almost blinded by the bright streetlights in south Leduc. My eyes finally adapt to the light level at around the highway 39 overpass at which point the lights stop and the darkness resumes, with my night vision gone and the aforementioned obnoxious car dealership glare. I'd like to see the whole section from south Leduc to 23 Av lit with low pressure sodium lamps (the long skinny deep orange ones). They are more energy efficient than the normal high pressure sodium lamps and much more friendly to dark adapted eyes.

Re: City eyes bus service to international airport (YEG)

... The mayor said one reason the service will cost so much is that Edmonton Transit must buy special highway buses....

Why? ETS runs the regular New Flyer city busses on Whitemud. Calgary transit runs the same busses on Deerfoot. Why can't they spend 10 minutes at 100 km/h in the slow lane of highway 2?

It starts to take exponential amounts of energy to move these things at higher speed. 80 might not be a problem, they might do 90 with the peddle down going downhill and wind at their back...I don't know. These things are also geared for city driving, I suppose that could be changed fairly easy. Anything less than 110 should not be allowed on Highway 2, ten below the traffic flow is not safe.

You might also have insurance issues. Those Newflyers are essentially pop cans on wheels. Just a thought.

/me imagines a packed NewFlyer doing 120 and getting in an accident. No seatbelts, some people standing....

I'm thinking this falls into the bad idea category...

Mandel in an interview mentioned the cost range, while withholding details. He said the city has worked out the probable amounts, including who should pay what. The mayor said one reason the service will cost so much is that Edmonton Transit must buy special highway buses.

Here are the current transit services to airports of Canada's major cities, starting with the largest metro area and working down. First and last are weekdays, will be different on weekends and holidays:

Toronto Pearson International Airport.
Note: Pearson Airport is in Mississauga and outside the Toronto Transit Commission service area.

Translink Route 424 (shuttle)
- Terminal to Airport Station, where connections are made to the 98 B-line rapid bus (BRT) to downtown Vancouver and Richmond, and connections to the 620 highway express to Tsawaassen Ferry Terminal for the Gulf Islands and Victoria. First 424 to the airport leaves airport station at 5:20am, last bus leaves the airport at 12:19am. The 424 runs every 7/8 minutes daytime, every 15 minutes in the evening.

Translink Route N10 (Night Bus)
- Terminal to Downtown Vancouver and Richmond City Centre. Buses run after 1:00am. First bus from downtown Vancouver to the airport is at 2:10am, last bus to Vancouver from the airport is at 2:30am. First bus from Richmond to the airport is at 1:12am and the last bus to Richmond is at 3:40am. Buses run every 30 minutes.

Planned Service
Canada Line (skytrain). This line is currently under construction and when it opens in 2009 will connect the Vancouver International Airport with downtown Vancouver using automated trains. Trains will run every 6 minutes in the daytime and every 8 miutes in the late evenings.

Calgary International Airport

Calgary Transit Route 57 (Local Service)
- Terminal to Whitehorn Station. First bus to the airport at 5:30am, last bus from the airport at 12:20am. Buses run every 20-30 minutes.

Winnipeg International Airport

Winnipeg Transit Route 15
- Terminal to downtown, first bus to airport at 5:30, last bus from airport at 11:50pm. Buses run every 15-20 minutes.

Victoria International Airport

BC Transit Route 70 (local and express)
- provides limited service between the terminal and downtown Victoria, Sidney and the Swartz Bay ferry terminal. Certain trips during the day Monday to Sunday divert to serve the airport. There are approximately 5 trips per day in each direction provided. Peak trips are provided express to and from Victoria.

BC Transit Route 83 (local)
- terminal to Sidney and Brentwood Bay. Six trips per day provided in both directions.

Proposed Service
Starting in September 2007, Route 75 will be extended from its current terminus in Saanichton to the airport, providing vast increases in frequency and providing new connecitons to Saanichton, Brentwood Bay, Butchart Gardens, Royal Oak and Victoria.

Saskatoon Airport

Saskatoon Transit Route 11
- temrinal to downtown Saskatoon, first bus to the airport at 5:30am, last bus from the airport at 12:30am. buses run every 30 minutes.

So I've probably missed some. There are osme smaller communities in BC that provide limited transit service to their local airports (e.g. Powell River). Anyboduy want to add to this?

/me imagines a packed NewFlyer doing 120 and getting in an accident. No seatbelts, some people standing....

I'm thinking this falls into the bad idea category...

Should they be doing 120km/h - I thought the speed limit was 1110km/h on Highway 2

I take buses on the highway all the time - New Flyer, GM Classic, Orion and the Trident Double-deckers - packed front to back at times and we're doing 90km/h on the Pat Bay Highway. You regularly see packed double-deckers (120 people) in Greater Victoria running at highway speeds.

Vancouver's 620 to the ferry terminal uses new flyer articulated running ont he highway at 100km/h. And Vancouver use single door, high-backed seated Orion buses on the 351 Vancouver White-Rock and 601, 602, 603, 604 Vancouver South Delta services. West Vancouver Blue Bus run New Flyer articulated and 40 ft buses on the Upper Levels Highway between Vancouver and Horseshoe Bay at speeds up to 100 km/h.

With the exception of a crash in the HOV lane in rush hour on Highway 99 in 1990s (caused by a car that used the HOV lane as an emergency shoulder and a bus doing 90 km/h passing stopped traffic and not seeing the stalled car until it was too late), we've had no problems.

Oh, and a bus turning onto Highway 17 on Route 70 north of Victoria was hit by a speeding car around midnight, again in the 1990s.

/me imagines a packed NewFlyer doing 120 and getting in an accident. No seatbelts, some people standing....

I'm thinking this falls into the bad idea category...

Should they be doing 120km/h - I thought the speed limit was 1110km/h on Highway 2

I take buses on the highway all the time - New Flyer, GM Classic, Orion and the Trident Double-deckers - packed front to back at times and we're doing 90km/h on the Pat Bay Highway. You regularly see packed double-deckers (120 people) in Greater Victoria running at highway speeds.

Vancouver's 620 to the ferry terminal uses new flyer articulated running ont he highway at 100km/h. And Vancouver use single door, high-backed seated Orion buses on the 351 Vancouver White-Rock and 601, 602, 603, 604 Vancouver South Delta services. West Vancouver Blue Bus run New Flyer articulated and 40 ft buses on the Upper Levels Highway between Vancouver and Horseshoe Bay at speeds up to 100 km/h.

With the exception of a crash in the HOV lane in rush hour on Highway 99 in 1990s (caused by a car that used the HOV lane as an emergency shoulder and a bus doing 90 km/h passing stopped traffic and not seeing the stalled car until it was too late), we've had no problems.

Oh, and a bus turning onto Highway 17 on Route 70 north of Victoria was hit by a speeding car around midnight, again in the 1990s.

When I was in Paris during the riots two years ago, I rode the bus to the airport instead of the train (since it shutdown while I was on it due to the riots), they used charter bus like the one above. Worked great!

Here are the current transit services to airports of Canada's major cities, starting with the largest metro area and working down. First and last are weekdays, will be different on weekends and holidays:

...

Thank you so much for compiling this.

I think it really shows Edmonton for the major exception it is. Not a unique aspect that I'm proud of.

I think the common understanding of the bus service to the airport is the bus would make a stop in Leduc on the way to the airport (if there is an agreement and the sharing of the funds).

This need not be. The airport could be the middle stop:

Edmonton-Leduc via Airport:
Bus leaves edmonton, arrives at the airport to drop off passengers, continues on to Leduc. If need be, it may even to a small run through Leduc.

Leduc-Edmonton via Airport:
Bus leaves Leduc Arrives at the Airport and the continues on to Edmonton.

For the passengers, it is a strictly airport service. But it also allows transport of airport staff to and from leduc as well as edmonton.

I've been thinking about this too and playing with it in Google Earth. I like the Leduc - Edmonton Airport - Southgate (to connect with the LRT starting in 2010). Nisku is a problem as I tihnk it needs a peak hour service to both Leduc and Southgate.

The issue is more jurisdictional than cost. The distance from downtown Edmonton to the Airport is 26km. Victoria's airport is 28 km and Victoria has bus service to it's airport. Multi-jurisidicitonal service is possible (Toronto airport is an example) and in Great Vancouver, West Coast Express and a new bus link between Abbotsford and Greater Vancouver via Aldergrove).

Cost wise, some sort of fare sharing/funding agreements are needed. The airport should pony up too, but I think they won't as they have to protect the taxis and airporter bus services that pay a lot to serve the airport.

What Edmonton (and Calgary) needs is a regional transit authority and this is where the Alberta Government needs to step in, folllow the BC Transit model and establish regional transit systems with a fare sharing formula.

For those who don't know, BC Transit is a Crown corporation that partners with municipalities and regional districts. BC Transit has a unified fleet of buses, does research and recommends routes, provides bus stops and vehicles and cost shares, usually around 40% of the service cost. The municipality or regional transit commission (or regional district as the case may be) sets the fare and service levels and gets to keep any money from the fare box - the reminder of the cost is covered by the municipality in any way it sees fit (usually taxes). Under this program most communities in BC, no matter how small, have some sort of transit service.

Still, with that great big fast freeway between Leduc and the airport, I can see why it's hard to get people out of their cars

Yes, parking at the airport is expensive, but right now it's the cheapest option for short trips and even for week long trips if there is more than one person going. Reasonably priced bus service could change that.

Boundary Bay AirportTranslink
Route C76 provides limited service 7 days a week from the airport to Scottsdale Exchange to the east and Ladner Exchange in the west (for connections to Vancouver express buses).

Note: Effective April 23rd, C76 provides hourly service to the airport.

If it looks like I'm trying to embarrass Edmonton for lack of action on getting service to its airport, I am. Come on Edmonton, get with it!

This is a fantasy route of course. The 501 runs from Century Park to Leduc via the Airport. In the peak hours, some trips route via Nisku Industrial. I supposed non-stop express trips from Leduc to Century Park could be provided if there was demand, but the routing via the airport is not that indirect. The route minimizes running on Highway 2 and could provide additional service to south Edmonton too.

I haven't worked out a schedule, but my guess is a return trip would take about 110 minutes via the airport and a little longer via Nisku (via Nisku would not go to the airport). Given a 110 return (this includes recovery time at the airport and at Leduc town centre), two buses could provide hourly service, or one could provide bi-hourly service.

Return trip Century Park to the Airport only would take 50 minutes including recovery. So if service to the Airport on Sunday was desirable but not to Leduc, or if service to Leduc was only in the peak, one bus could provide hourly service Century Park to the airport.

Make sure you have Google Earth 4 installed, then click on this link and select "open in Google Earth).

Took my GPS and measured distances today

I started out at Century Park bus terminal, then drove to the
Southern outskirts of the city, continued to the Northern boundary of YEG and finally to the terminal building.

The distances:
Century Park to Southern boundary 2.71 miles

Century Park to YEG terminal . . . . . 8.6 miles
Conclusion: - an 8.6 mile extension of the LRT will allow passengers
to go to and from YEG.

The Southern boundary of the city is already South of Gateway Park, as there is a lot of new house and condo development underway. How many years before the city reaches a mile or two from the airport?

There is nothing online, but many of the long term plans I've seen from sources in the engineering/planning firms I know all show an allowance for the ROW for LRT. It is not purchased, but any developments in the area must allow for it.

There is nothing online, but many of the long term plans I've seen from sources in the engineering/planning firms I know all show an allowance for the ROW for LRT. It is not purchased, but any developments in the area must allow for it.

Yes, thankfully the LRT right of way shows up on the city's ASPs and whatnot; that doesn't get around the fact that it's just plain not transit supportive despite their claims to the contrary in the name of transit lip service. A policy that doesn't allow bus stops in front of schools isn't transit friendly. Running the LRT between two high speed arterial streets isn't transit friendly. Every time I have to look at the city's plans with their "Smart Choices" I want to run around screaming and gouge my eyes out. Generally this is why I avoid looking at them at work.

Oh, and who else absolutely loves that every single road has that stupid curve in it to mirror Highway II? Gotta love that 111 St turns into 127 St, but 127 St turns into 141 St...all the way along. 75 into 66 is one thing, but numbering completely different major streets identically is ludicrous without even talking about what a huge mistake all these angled roads are.

Also a note to city council: STOP RUNNING LRT DOWN ARTERIAL RIGHTS OF WAY! It slows down traffic, costs more, takes more space, creates barriers to pedestrians and generally treats transit riders as lepers. Who enjoys having to use a pedway just to cross two lanes of traffic, then having to trudge across the vast tracts of empty parking, and then if you're lucky catching a bus because you sure as hell can't walk home in any of these places.

Just designate a 10m corridor somewhere else on an alignment that makes sense to catch all the stops and then place the density accordingly. Is that really so hard?

Anything in an ASP purporting to be transit friendly is an outright lie and you'd thing council could see that.

Yes, thankfully the LRT right of way shows up on the city's ASPs and whatnot; that doesn't get around the fact that it's just plain not transit supportive despite their claims to the contrary in the name of transit lip service. A policy that doesn't allow bus stops in front of schools isn't transit friendly. Running the LRT between two high speed arterial streets isn't transit friendly. Every time I have to look at the city's plans with their "Smart Choices" I want to run around screaming and gouge my eyes out. Generally this is why I avoid looking at them at work.

Oh, and who else absolutely loves that every single road has that stupid curve in it to mirror Highway II? Gotta love that 111 St turns into 127 St, but 127 St turns into 141 St...all the way along. 75 into 66 is one thing, but numbering completely different major streets identically is ludicrous without even talking about what a huge mistake all these angled roads are.

Also a note to city council: STOP RUNNING LRT DOWN ARTERIAL RIGHTS OF WAY! It slows down traffic, costs more, takes more space, creates barriers to pedestrians and generally treats transit riders as lepers. Who enjoys having to use a pedway just to cross two lanes of traffic, then having to trudge across the vast tracts of empty parking, and then if you're lucky catching a bus because you sure as hell can't walk home in any of these places.

Just designate a 10m corridor somewhere else on an alignment that makes sense to catch all the stops and then place the density accordingly. Is that really so hard?

Anything in an ASP purporting to be transit friendly is an outright lie and you'd thing council could see that.

Now here is where you are wrong. Fact is that many of the newer Neighbourhood Structure Plans (NSP's) are proposing higher density housing around future transit / LRT stations. In fact, Heritage Valley Neighbourhood 5 (The town centre) is comprised primarily of medium and high density housing. This is slated to be one of Edmonton's highest density suburban neighbourhoods.

From a transportation perspective, it actually makes sense to dedicate LRT ROW within the roadway ROW's. It's worked very well in many other cities and there are very little conflicts with vehicles and overall traffic movements.

Now here is where you are wrong. Fact is that many of the newer Neighbourhood Structure Plans (NSP's) are proposing higher density housing around future transit / LRT stations. In fact, Heritage Valley Neighbourhood 5 (The town centre) is comprised primarily of medium and high density housing. This is slated to be one of Edmonton's highest density suburban neighbourhoods.

Literally the first words in the SCDB's Town Centre (5.2) Section:

The proposed Town Centre is located at the confluence of three arterial roadways, approximately 1 km west of Highway 2 and adjacent to Blackmud Creek.

Aren't arterial roads for driving? Where's the mention of the LRT in that blurb? Oh, "transit-friendly" in the last paragraph. That's lip service, not concrete plans.

The realigned 111 and 127 Streets squeeze in on the town centre and are only five blocks apart (rather than the 16 they are numerically) as they pass. It's additionally bordered by what the major E-W road will be. Basically, this walls in the high density. After you get off the train, walk up two stories, down two stories, and another five blocks to get to the middle of the town centre, that's probably going to be okay if everything you need is in this centre (which I doubt based on the city's ineptitude with combining commercial and residential. Look at how Millwoods Town Centre turned out, etc.), but let's get real, everything on that map that isn't labeled "mixed office/commercial/residential" (and again, who knows how that's actually going to turn out) isn't in the centre. If you want to get to a school, or anything else in Heritage Valley, you'll have to cross one of those roads. The pedestrians are going to say "hey, why don't I drive," and then the city will scratch their heads as to why ridership is so low.

Again from the SCDB:

Fire hydrants, bus stops and other municipal services that limit onstreet parking should be located away from the front of the school building envelope.

I will continue to regard these plans as mere lip service until they are fully developed, at which time I will criticize them in more detail.

Originally Posted by ChrisD

From a transportation perspective, it actually makes sense to dedicate LRT ROW within the roadway ROW's. It's worked very well in many other cities and there are very little conflicts with vehicles and overall traffic movements.

In Calgary (my counter example of it not working), the median stations all have single pedway crossings of the roads. That's two stories up, two stories down, and you can't come off at either end of the platform (potentially 200m+ in walking savings) because there's only one pedway. Then you have to trudge through the transit transfer centre (if there is one), a wide swath of road right of way, and a Superstore parking lot (always with the Superstores).

Since the parking lots are oriented to the roads, not the actual stores, if you run the LRT down the road all you get are parking lots. Sure this can be changed, but would you rather take a long pedway across a road or just walk off the end of the platform into a walkable area?

It's easier to build an LRT when you don't have to realign all the intersections. It's also easier to build a grade separation when you don't have to cross all the intersection flares (Which can potentially double the length of tunnel). Note that there isn't a single CN or CP or whatever track running down the middle of a road.

Whether or not it actually affects the traffic, there is a perception that it will. There's constant whining about adding grade separations for freight trains; how do you think they'll feel about LRT? I frankly don't care that much if it hurts traffic slightly, but I do care if that's the perception and I do care if it slows down the train.

Now here is where you are wrong. Fact is that many of the newer Neighbourhood Structure Plans (NSP's) are proposing higher density housing around future transit / LRT stations. In fact, Heritage Valley Neighbourhood 5 (The town centre) is comprised primarily of medium and high density housing. This is slated to be one of Edmonton's highest density suburban neighbourhoods.

Literally the first words in the SCDB's Town Centre (5.2) Section:

The proposed Town Centre is located at the confluence of three arterial roadways, approximately 1 km west of Highway 2 and adjacent to Blackmud Creek.

Aren't arterial roads for driving? Where's the mention of the LRT in that blurb? Oh, "transit-friendly" in the last paragraph. That's lip service, not concrete plans.

The realigned 111 and 127 Streets squeeze in on the town centre and are only five blocks apart (rather than the 16 they are numerically) as they pass. It's additionally bordered by what the major E-W road will be. Basically, this walls in the high density. After you get off the train, walk up two stories, down two stories, and another five blocks to get to the middle of the town centre, that's probably going to be okay if everything you need is in this centre (which I doubt based on the city's ineptitude with combining commercial and residential. Look at how Millwoods Town Centre turned out, etc.), but let's get real, everything on that map that isn't labeled "mixed office/commercial/residential" (and again, who knows how that's actually going to turn out) isn't in the centre. If you want to get to a school, or anything else in Heritage Valley, you'll have to cross one of those roads. The pedestrians are going to say "hey, why don't I drive," and then the city will scratch their heads as to why ridership is so low.

Again from the SCDB:

Fire hydrants, bus stops and other municipal services that limit onstreet parking should be located away from the front of the school building envelope.

I will continue to regard these plans as mere lip service until they are fully developed, at which time I will criticize them in more detail.

Originally Posted by ChrisD

From a transportation perspective, it actually makes sense to dedicate LRT ROW within the roadway ROW's. It's worked very well in many other cities and there are very little conflicts with vehicles and overall traffic movements.

In Calgary (my counter example of it not working), the median stations all have single pedway crossings of the roads. That's two stories up, two stories down, and you can't come off at either end of the platform (potentially 200m+ in walking savings) because there's only one pedway. Then you have to trudge through the transit transfer centre (if there is one), a wide swath of road right of way, and a Superstore parking lot (always with the Superstores).

Since the parking lots are oriented to the roads, not the actual stores, if you run the LRT down the road all you get are parking lots. Sure this can be changed, but would you rather take a long pedway across a road or just walk off the end of the platform into a walkable area?

It's easier to build an LRT when you don't have to realign all the intersections. It's also easier to build a grade separation when you don't have to cross all the intersection flares (Which can potentially double the length of tunnel). Note that there isn't a single CN or CP or whatever track running down the middle of a road.

Whether or not it actually affects the traffic, there is a perception that it will. There's constant whining about adding grade separations for freight trains; how do you think they'll feel about LRT? I frankly don't care that much if it hurts traffic slightly, but I do care if that's the perception and I do care if it slows down the train.

You can read the SCDB all you want, but there is a Neighbourhood Area Structure Plan currently underway for the Town Centre. The SCDB sets that stage, the actors and details are in the NASP. LRT and park n' ride are a part of this.

Wait a couple of months and you'll understand where I am coming from.

Of course CN / CP tracks don't run within the median, they are much, much longer, larger and use a heavier guage of rail. Not a good example.

You can read the SCDB all you want, but there is a Neighbourhood Area Structure Plan currently underway for the Town Centre. The SCDB sets that stage, the actors and details are in the NASP. LRT and park n' ride are a part of this.

Any possibility of a preview? I'd love to change my opinion. I don't want to hate it, I'd rather take on the developments that don't even claim to be transit friendly, but the last thing I want is something done poorly getting shown as an example of transit not working.

I am somewhat worried about the park and ride, but I suppose the one thing having the station off to the side would let you do is keep the park and ride seperate from the high density.

Originally Posted by ChrisD

Of course CN / CP tracks don't run within the median, they are much, much longer, larger and use a heavier guage of rail. Not a good example.

I realize that it's a crappy example, but at the same time they don't run as frequently either. I get that it's easier to retro-fit, and I get that it might be easier to design the neighbourhood around it when you do that new, but I don't see any advantages for transit riders other than possibly cost and bus connections, and I don't think even that has to be true.

Any possibility of a preview? I'd love to change my opinion. I don't want to hate it, I'd rather take on the developments that don't even claim to be transit friendly, but the last thing I want is something done poorly getting shown as an example of transit not working.

I am somewhat worried about the park and ride, but I suppose the one thing having the station off to the side would let you do is keep the park and ride seperate from the high density.

I can't disclose anything yet, but there have been ongoing meetings between the developers and City administration over the past couple of months.

As it stands, the Town Centre park n' ride is separated from the high density nodes.

Getting to the international airport or St. Albert could one day be as easy as hopping on the LRT.

Mayor Stephen Mandel today floated the idea of extending the line both north and south of the city – essentially linking St. Albert to the airport.

But he suggested it would require a significant cash injection from regional partners.

“Ultimately this needs to be a regional system – to reach the airport, for example – but this will not happen under our current structure where only Edmonton pays,” Mandel told a Chamber of Commerce luncheon in a speech that focused heavily on his so-called 90-day plan.

St. Albert Mayor Nolan Crouse said his city hasn’t taken an official position on the LRT yet, but it is being considered.

“Yes, we are interested in the concept,” Crouse told Sun Media. “We have not done much work on it politically and we do plan to.

“Administratively, they’ve begun discussions with the City of Edmonton.”

Crouse said money may be set aside as early as next year to begin the planning process.

Jim Rudolph, a spokesman for Edmonton Airports, said getting mass public transportation to the airport is critical, especially because more people are using the gateway. There is no bus service to the international airport.

“We’re willing to support those kinds of talks and seeing what can be done on a regional basis,” Rudolph said.

Mandel said within the next 90 days, council will get a look at preliminary plans to build a new LRT line from downtown to MacEwan College, the Royal Alexandra hospital and the main NAIT campus. It’s that same line that could one day extend to St. Albert.

Mandel told reporters that after the NAIT line, his vision is to expand the existing LRT line further northeast past Clareview, and later southeast into Mill Woods. The plan is to bring bus rapid transit to the west end before an LRT line.

As part of his 90-day vision, Mandel said the city will shortly hire a chief financial officer to advise officials on ways to use money “more effectively.”

As well, early in the new year, the report on a downtown arena will be completed and released, he said.

“Once we have both the Rexall renovation option and the new arena proposal in front of us, we can finally begin to have a real discussion about how a new project could work.”

Around that time a proposal for a new downtown bridge is also expected to come out.

Before Christmas, Mandel said council will get an updated budget on the southwest recreation centre, but warned construction costs have doubled to about $120 million. The city is now looking at alternative ways to fund the facility.

And next week, Mandel said council will get its first look at next year’s draft budget.

“Council hasn’t seen it yet, but we already understand that the pressure on our operating costs will continue this year,” he said.

Earlier this year, Mandel said the document could propose a tax hike of 10%.

The LRT is slow, and there is no proof anyone would use it anyway, given most people drive to Airport at the moment. Why would I park at an LRT station rather than Airport? Agree that a bus makes sense though. If it is very popular, then maybe LRT could work.

Rather see the LRT focus on being an inner city commuter train first, benefiting neighborhoods in Edmonton. Not an inter-city train for Leduc/Nisku, St Albert, etc. We don't need to encourage even more people to commute from our Sattelite cities.

Why live in Edmonton, when you can buy a cheaper house in Nisku, or a fancy exclusive one in St Albert, yet still get benefit of LRT commute? Do we really want to encourage more sprawl further out from the core?

The LRT is slow, and there is no proof anyone would use it anyway, given most people drive to Airport at the moment. Why would I park at an LRT station rather than Airport? Agree that a bus makes sense though. If it is very popular, then maybe LRT could work.

An LRT line would be faster than putting up with traffic and rush-hour delays to the core. It would be extremely useful for people who don't live in Edmonton and don't have a car available here.

An LRT line would be faster than putting up with traffic and rush-hour delays to the core. It would be extremely useful for people who don't live in Edmonton and don't have a car available here.

70km/hr (current LRT system top speed) is very fast isn't it.

PS. Why should Edmotnon be prioritising helping those who don't live in Edmonton, when most Edmonton neighborhoods (including Milwoods, and West End) have been paying for LRT through taxes, yet still don't have service?

The LRT is slow, and there is no proof anyone would use it anyway, given most people drive to Airport at the moment. (...)

Ever been to Chicago? Atlanta? Portland? San Fran?

Portland has the MAX running out to their field... It is well used, even by business travellers like little ol' me!

Given that Gateway is not ever going to be free flowing, and the time advantages/frequency advantages over this small distance given your other options are a cab ride or a rental car, travellers will use it. Add employees and even a good smattering of locals and it will get used.

The bus option is mainly for employees of the airport and the odd traveller.